Sparrow Health Care Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated requires improvement.

This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 57 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People told us they received good support and staff knew them well. They felt this was due to the provider being very involved with their care and support. Despite this positive feedback, we found the care people received was highly dependent on the providers relationship with them and was not backed up with effective systems in order to ensure their care was safe and person-centred. Care plans lacked personalised detail regarding the support and how people wanted this to be provided. Where information was provided, this was often difficult to find due to how the care plans had been written. The provider acknowledged there were shortfalls in care plans and felt this was due to them working in isolation, and managing the service alone for a long time whilst also delivering much of the support. They told us they were in the process of developing structures alongside the new management team to enable the service to develop going forward.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Although our inspection highlighted concerns in how the service and records were managed, people and relatives told us they valued the service due to the continuity of the staff supporting them which included the provider. They spoke of having a ‘team’ involved in providing their care which they felt was reassuring as they developed positive relationships with them all. Comments included, “It is very relaxed, they will sit down and chat and that builds trust.” And, “I know them all. They are kind but also thorough.”

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People and their relatives told us staff communicated well and, if additional information was required, they could ask others involved in their care. However, we found people’s care records did not include information regarding their communication needs in line with the Accessible Information Standards. The standards require providers of adult social care services to identify people’s communication needs and set out how these will be met. There was no guidance on how written information should be provided or people’s preference regarding how they received information and communication from the provider and staff.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. The provider had a complaints record in place. However, this did not include complaints which were highlighted within incident records which had not been responded to. The failure to identify and respond to these concerns meant risks were not fully addressed and mitigated.

People told us the provider made sure they could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. However, the provider did not maintain accurate records of how people were supported to access care and treatment when needed. The provider did not have effective systems in place to monitor changes in people’s health to prevent avoidable harm. People were consistently supported by staff who knew them well which minimised those risks.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. People told us staff went above and beyond to make sure they were flexible in the support they provided. One person told us, “Nothing is ever too much trouble for them. They will always try, whatever it is.” We heard examples of people being supported to do things which were outside the remit of their support but would otherwise have not been possible for them. These included going out to the shops, completing deep cleaning and visiting people in hospital. The provider told us, “We tell staff not to be too restricted by time and hours. It’s about the person, not the time they are allocated.”

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. One relative told us the service had responded well when their loved one’s needs had changed significantly. However, there was no available evidence to show people had been supported to discuss plans for their future care or end of life wishes. The provider told us this was something they were aware needed to be addressed and were looking for suitable and sensitive ways to discuss this with people.